How descriptive to be with romantic scenes.

[Ban]

While we're on this tangent, I generally agree with the Lowan cerberus on maintaining a graceful distance between author and reviewer, but if someone were to suggest that there are things in my works that quite simply aren't there, I would consider that a rare circumstance in which I might intervene.

 

[Queshire]

I mean, maybe this is just my anime brain on display, but you can easily have fan service without going so far as to actually have a sex scene.

 

[Queshire]

All sex is really, is pain. Watered down, label slapped on... What would Christian Grey say? There needs to be an intermediary, a chaperone, a church. One can get all cheerful about finding the lover of their dreams, but psychological aspects of child birth, still make me cling to safety.

I respect your perspective, but I will continue to enjoy my adult fun times.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

While we're on this tangent, I generally agree with the Lowan cerberus on maintaining a graceful distance between author and reviewer, but if someone were to suggest that there are things in my works that quite simply aren't there, I would consider that a rare circumstance in which I might intervene.

I'm going to stop and take a moment with this. It happens. Readers process stories in very different ways, and not always well, not always correctly, and not always in ways we could have foreseen.

Case in point is this.
Check out this Amazon review of Faerie Rising: The First Book of Binding (The Books of Binding 1)

This is a situation where the reviewer really didn't process what they were reading, and the lens they used was also deeply flawed. Their quote? Not anywhere in Faerie Rising. What I imagine happened here was someone was projecting a great deal as they were reading and identified with our older FMC a bit more than I think they knew. It just made me desperately want to hug them. This is a very unhappy person.

So why didn't I? Why didn't I step in to address this very clear case of misunderstanding and what seems to me to obviously be pain? Because I wasn't invited to. I can't emphasis this enough. The reviews aren't meant for us, though they're still giddy-making all the same. They're for readers both to share with other readers and help show the way however they see fit, and if other readers want to comment it's between them. But, while there's an idea of the author behind the book, and that idea gets more and more out front every day, we're still not really present in the reviewer's imagination while they write. Story, sure. Characters, hell I hope so. Us? No, we gave ownership of that part to them when we published. It's theirs to ingrain into their little corner of the Collective Unconscious and there it will stay... until the sequel.

So, basically, the general consensus among those who have them is stay out of the kiddy pool. It's not ours to play in. We have our own.

 

[The Dark One]

Just to second AELowan's view above, and add...

Do not EVER go under another guise to attack or "correct" a review. Or even to post a review of your work in the first place. Really bad move and liable to get you called out. I seem to remember an author revealed on GR as praising their own work and attacking bad reviews (under a different name) and they got career ending publicity for it.

Mind you, I guess that's what pen names are for...

 

[Ban]

Have your stance, but if someone were to falsely state my works feature things that aren't there, they get their safe space busted in. I don't mind misinterpretation, but let's say someone writes in their review that my work contains something egregious. As a result of their falsehood the illusion of me being unable to observe them dissipates. There's a limit to decorum and it's called lying.

This is of course a theoretical, but within it, reviewers still aren't exempt from abiding by reality. Perhaps this is a cultural difference, for my Dutch mind does not care to proclaim any customer king.

 

[pmmg]

I think if its outright lies and slander, I might ask for it to be removed. But...I dont think its the place to rebut. I would strongly avoid retorting to those who give low reviews. For those interested, I might chat through my own website, or other media accounts. But....reviews is not for me to converse. Only thing I think I might say is thanks for reading.

 

[Ban]

Just to second AELowan's view above, and add...

Do not EVER go under another guise to attack or "correct" a review. Or even to post a review of your work in the first place. Really bad move and liable to get you called out. I seem to remember an author revealed on GR as praising their own work and attacking bad reviews (under a different name) and they got career ending publicity for it.

Mind you, I guess that's what pen names are for...

Why is a guise added into the equation? Call them out under your own name. To my mind that should be left for outright slander alone, but I see no reason to not expose (the in this case fictive) someone who themselves have no regard for truth. Say it under your own name loud and proud.

 

[The Dark One]

Have your stance, but if someone were to falsely state my works feature things that aren't there, they get their safe space busted in. I don't mind misinterpretation, but let's say someone writes in their review that my work contains something egregious. As a result of their falsehood the illusion of me being unable to observe them dissipates. There's a limit to decorum and it's called lying.

This is of course a theoretical, but within it, reviewers still aren't exempt from abiding by reality. Perhaps this is a cultural difference, for my Dutch mind does not care to proclaim any customer king.

I quite appreciate your concern. Fortunately, I've had overwhelmingly positive reviews, but there are a handful that made me gnash my teeth. One was in a major Australian newspaper so not much I could do about that (it damned me with faint praise rather than blasted me) but one online review did inspire me to comment...

My least successful book (so far) sits at 3.83 on GR and has clearly polarised the readers. One quite influential reviewer complained of rape in the book, which alarmed me greatly. There is no rape in the book, although there are certainly some unusual situations. I contacted that reviewer, thanked her for the review, and said words to the effect of: I normally never comment on reviews but I was concerned to see you interpret X situation as rape. Rape is defined as being aware, or becoming aware, that a person is not consenting to your actions but you continue anyway. That never happens in the book and it will unfairly influence other potential readers if you suggest that it does.

She could have reacted badly but, to her credit, she slightly watered down her review. The damage was done, though. A very large number of people liked her review and obviously never read the book.

 

[Ban]

Thanks for sharing, that's an interesting experience. On one hand it's commmendable that said person altered the review, but on the other I reckon it might have been more immediately effective if they had been addressed publicly. The high road is often clouded and out of view. Then again, I have only published a poetry collection and am not in a position where I have to worry about these things quite yet (if ever, given what I might end up doing language-wise).

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Thanks for sharing, that's an interesting experience. On one hand it's commmendable that said person altered the review, but on the other I reckon it might have been more immediately effective if they had been addressed publicly. The high road is often clouded and out of view. Then again, I have only published a poetry collection and am not in a position where I have to worry about these things quite yet (if ever, given what I might end up doing language-wise).

And you'll get there. The reason why anyone would throw out the idea of a nom de guerre, is because publishing, all of publishing, is one of those professions where reputation matters. Deeply. And in an industry where pretty much everyone knows everyone, word travels at the speed I can only wish our books did. Think unladen swallow fast. This is The Way, and publishing is a very large, ponderous ship that's slow to turn and has a wide ass. In other words, glaciers have melted in the time it takes publishing to change.

But, that being said, a good reputation can stand you in very good stead with your colleagues, and it's the basis upon which many good working relationships - and just great friendships - are built. It's our launching pad to spreading by word-of-mouth, and that is still the most powerful way to find readers. Slow as... slow stuff, but once it builds, it's slower to decline.

Unless you get a rep for being a jerk, which is pretty much what most review replies are seen as and usually boil down to.

 

[Finchbearer]

Have your stance, but if someone were to falsely state my works feature things that aren't there, they get their safe space busted in. I don't mind misinterpretation, but let's say someone writes in their review that my work contains something egregious. As a result of their falsehood the illusion of me being unable to observe them dissipates. There's a limit to decorum and it's called lying.

This is of course a theoretical, but within it, reviewers still aren't exempt from abiding by reality. Perhaps this is a cultural difference, for my Dutch mind does not care to proclaim any customer king.

If you had read a book that you wanted to criticise in the form of a review how would you feel about the author coming along and rebuking all of your opinions? People will interpret what they want from your work and you have zero control over it. The only thing an author could do is try to reach more readers in order to get a more balanced star rating.

 

[The Dark One]

If you had read a book that you wanted to criticise in the form of a review how would you feel about the author coming along and rebuking all of your opinions? People will interpret what they want from your work and you have zero control over it. The only thing an author could do is try to reach more readers in order to get a more balanced star rating.

Well, we try to do that all the time.

 

[Finchbearer]

Well, we try to do that all the time.

It’s the only thing that will give you a truer statistic.

Sarah J Maas with her A Court of Thorns and Roses, which is a spicy read, on Amazon has:
161,972 overall ratings
114,739 5️ reviews
1113 1️ reviews

Some of the reviews are incredibly scathing, but there’s enough of a balance that it consistently comes up as a 4️ read.

*whistles* on Goodreads, see this is why Goodreads is the place to focus your energy on nowadays, ACOTAR has a whopping:
2,153,824 overall reviews and ratings
1,007,190 5️ reviews
36,995 1️ reviews

And let me tell you, people are getting fresh with their reviews over there!

 

[The Dark One]

It’s the only thing that will give you a truer statistic.

Sarah J Maas with her A Court of Thorns and Roses, which is a spicy read, on Amazon has:
161,972 overall ratings
114,739 5️ reviews
1113 1️ reviews

Some of the reviews are incredibly scathing, but there’s enough of a balance that it consistently comes up as a 4️ read.

*whistles* on Goodreads, see this is why Goodreads is the place to focus your energy on nowadays, ACOTAR has a whopping:
2,153,824 overall reviews and ratings
1,007,190 5️ reviews
36,995 1️ reviews

And let me tell you, people are getting fresh with their reviews over there!

I have a solid 177 ratings on GR at a pleasing average of 4.11.

Quality over quantity?

One of my publishers reckons that for every GR review there are probably 300 people who've read your book. So, 53,100 readers?

That pleases me greatly.

 

[Finchbearer]

I have a solid 177 ratings on GR at a pleasing average of 4.11.

That’s a great conversion rate. The more reviews you get though the truer the stat becomes in terms of average star rating. I suppose you first require well over a certain amount of reads to get that basic stat.

 

[The Dark One]

That’s a great conversion rate. The more reviews you get though the truer the stat becomes in terms of average star rating. I suppose you first require well over a certain amount of reads to get that basic stat.

There's bound to be some sort of bell curve. No idea how it works exactly.

 

[Finchbearer]

Hmm, I understand the wish for quality over quantity, but for example if a book is read, reviewed and rated by one person at 5️ that’s 100% conversion rate if what you’re looking for is generally 4️ and above, which is usually the marker for a good book, but if 500 people have read the book and only 300 people have given it 4️ or above your conversion rate will sit at around 60%. 60% is therefore a truer representation on the quality of your book? That’s the way I look at it when I’m buying books anyway.

 

[The Dark One]

Being solidly above 4 after (getting towards) 200 ratings means I have more 5s than all the other ratings put together. (Not that I obsess about this. Even though it is a little bit gratifying.)

I'm described as the archetypal cult novelist - small number of fans who tend to be quite enthusiastic.

No doubt many of us here fit this category.

 

[Finchbearer]

It all depends for me. If I read a synopsis that’s looks like my jam, and it’s only say 99p to download on Kindle, despite having little or no reviews, I’ll download a sample, if I enjoy it, I’ll buy it.

Otherwise if it’s a well known title with millions sold, I can go more on the flurry of reviews along with if I like the synopsis.

At this point, I would be happy with anyone having read my work, even if the review is